Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), whose 32 year career in the House of Representatives came to an end yesterday, said Friday that he's told Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) that he would welcome an interim appointment to the seat expected to be vacated by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

Frank said that the fiscal cliff deal that passed the House of Representatives earlier this week and set the stage for a return to the same legislative fight in a matter of months "means that February, March and April are going to be among the most important months" for the American economy. The outspoken Democrat indicated he would only hold the seat until the statewide special election and has no designs of carving out a career in the Senate, but he relishes the opportunity to be a part of the next fiscal battle on Capitol Hill.

"I'm not going to be coy. It's not anything I've ever been good at," Frank said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I've told the governor that I would now like, frankly, to do that because I would like to be a part of that. It's only a three-month period. I wouldn't want to do anything more. I don't want to run again."

Kerry has been nominated by President Barack Obama to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the longtime senator is expected to breeze through the confirmation process.

3. Wonderful!

4. Unless the Governor has another candidate in mind, I bet

Deval Patrick WILL INDEED appoint his good friend and ally, Barney Frank.

Frank is the right man for the interim job, because he won't run for the office himself. He's 72, and wants to retire and teach and consult and write. This is a perfect final chapter for him. I think this is a WONDERFUL idea.

5. I hope not.

I don't know what Massachusetts law allows, but the smart thing to do would be to appoint the odds-on favorite election candidate to the vacancy ... that is, take every political advantage to insure that the Democrat wins in the end.

Besides, as much as there is to like about Barney Frank, frankly, for me personally there has been a bit much of Barney retrospective in the media ... let the man retire.

7. As far as I know, there is no law against your idea.

But following the death of Kennedy, the Governor chose to appoint someone who agreed NOT to seek election. We all know how that turned out, Scott Brown got the seat in the interim election, but proved he was not as popular as Elizabeth Warren in this last election.

So far, Patrick feels inclined to do the same for this interim appointment, (appoint someone not seeking election).

I think the Governor realizes the dangers involved in appointing Barney or any other non-office-seeking person. But the Governor also realizes that it is the will of the people in the voting booth that has the final say.

As far as Frank retiring, he is volunteering to postpone his actual retirement for 6 months or so, that's all. And there is probably no one better experienced in fiscal matters to fill the seat for these next few months.

The latest word on Scott Brown is that he might sit out the election, NOT run for Kerry's seat, and run for Governor in 2014!!
I hope he does just that, and hope he will not be elected Governor in 2014, although Massachusetts has a history of electing Republican Governors to balance out the heavily Democratic state legislature. ( e.g. Mitt Romney)

Personally, I'd rather see Scott Brown as Governor than as Senator, but both ideas are nauseating.

44. I made my point, but I will repeat it and expand upon it.

I don't know why anyone has to defend Patick's honor. No one attacked it. Appointing Frank would be perfectly honorable, but so would appointing someone who is not strictly a placeholder.

Making a temporary appointment of someone willing and able to run for election would perfectly fair, ethical, honorable, etc. in any circumstances, but especially since Brown has had the advantages of incumbency for much longer than ay interim appointee will have.

Citing Kennedy is not dispositive of the current situation. For one thing, Kennedy made a deathbed request for a place holder that Kennedy certainly deserved to have honored, especially since the Senate was then consumed with health care, which Kennedy called "the cause of my life." As far as we know, though, Kerry has made no comparable request. Beyond that, the upcoming Senate agenda is not consumed with one issue and the Massachusetts delegation has now included a Republican Senator for the first time in decades, another situation that was not operative when Kennedy passed. So, replacing Kennedy is only superficially like replacing Kerry in many important ways.

And I don't believe Patrick's saying something that he believes automatically makes it so.

As far as what I would recommend, though, I was not posting with an agenda, besides distinguishing two situations that I think are very distinguishable. I would be equally fine with Frank or with one of the good Massachusetts Democrats who might want the job on a permanent basis, as I said in prior post in this thread. Neither would be the least bit unethical or unfair. However, I do agree that no member of the Massachusetts delegation should quite his seat to serve as interim appointee. Too risky.

8. Listening to the MA people here, it would HURT the candidate in the general election

by making it not the choice of the electorate.

As to Frank, forget the public persona and think of the fact that he has been the chair (or ranking member) of a committee that has worked these high profile compromises. (Think Dodd Frank) By all accounts, he is whip smart and is able to negotiate well with others. Here, he will NOT have any position to rely on he will be both an immediate lame duck and the person with the least seniority - as anyone appointed will be. It would ONLY be competence that would mean that anyone would be more than just a Democratic vote.

33. How can it not be the choice of the electorate?

9. I agree with you completely.

Barney Frank would do a superb job filling in for a few months, but so would various other Representatives from Massachusetts, such as Ed Markey, who's running for the Democratic nomination in the special election.

The special election will not be a pushover. Governor Patrick should give the Democratic nominee the statewide recognition of being a Senator.

their House seat and House seniority, to be a temporary Senator, while running for permanent office?

It is ALSO a "cart before the horse" dilemma. The Dem finalist candidate will not emerge until 3 months or so after Kerry leaves the Senate, after a primary. Governor cannot know who the finalist Dem Senate candidate will be the day Kerry leaves and the Gov has to appoint someone within a few days.

Then, if they lose the Senate race, we have lost TWO Dem seats, one in the House one in the Senate, not just one, and we need another special election for re-filling that House seat again.

Not very easy to run a state-wide campaign when you're only known in your own House district. (Few voters in W. Mass or Cape Cod know Markey or Lynch or others outside their own area).

I also think Barney Frank is about the best interim Senator we could ever find, with his vast array of knowledge of federal budgets, taxes, and the implications of the "fiscal cliff" budget cuts that are up-coming.

50. Responses to your points

House member "abandoning" his or her seat -- yes, there'd be some risk involved (although, depending on the timing of the special election for the House seat, it might be possible for the temporary Senator, having been bounced from the Senate in the special election, to return to the House). Of course, there's risk even without the interim appointment. A Congressman could win the 2013 special election for Senator, abandon a totally safe House seat, and then lose the 2014 regular election, having served in the Senate for only a year and a half or so.

What makes it tricky is that for someone like Markey to be the interim appointee exposes him to the risk of losing the special election, but simultaneously makes it more likely that the Democratic nominee will win the special election.

You write:

It is ALSO a "cart before the horse" dilemma. The Dem finalist candidate will not emerge until 3 months or so after Kerry leaves the Senate, after a primary. Governor cannot know who the finalist Dem Senate candidate will be the day Kerry leaves and the Gov has to appoint someone within a few days.

I didn't get into that complication but it is a complication. Here's what I said about it in another thread on this subject: "If it seems clear that Markey will be the nominee, he should be appointed. If there's likely to be a seriously contested primary, of course, then Patrick's task is more difficult."

If Capuano or Lynch does decide to go for it, then for Patrick to appoint any one of the candidates would still have advantages but would create a lot of intraparty ill will.

You write:

Then, if they lose the Senate race, we have lost TWO Dem seats, one in the House one in the Senate, not just one, and we need another special election for re-filling that House seat again.

Markey represents the 5th CD, which has a PVI of D+16. (Capuano: 7th CD, PVI of D+29; Lynch: 8th CD, PVI of only D+9, but still pretty good.) It's very likely that we don't "lose" a House seat; it merely stands vacant for a short time before a new Dem is elected.

You write:

Not very easy to run a state-wide campaign when you're only known in your own House district. (Few voters in W. Mass or Cape Cod know Markey or Lynch or others outside their own area).

Precisely! That's the reason for Patrick to use the interim appointment to help a Dem close that gap. Some people here dismiss Scott Brown's chances, but polls show that he's way ahead of all the Dems in statewide name recognition, having run two statewide campaigns and served for more than a year in the Senate.

You write:

I also think Barney Frank is about the best interim Senator we could ever find, with his vast array of knowledge of federal budgets, taxes, and the implications of the "fiscal cliff" budget cuts that are up-coming.

Frank is both brilliant and knowledgeable, but the three Congressmembers I've mentioned in this post are no slouches either.

I would have slightly preferred Capuano to Markey, and greatly prefer either to the more conservative Lynch. Nevertheless, Markey does have some claim to being "the" liberal candidate this time, because Capuano ran and lost in the primary after Ted Kennedy died. Arguably, it's Markey's turn. By that logic, Capuano should stay out and Patrick should appoint Markey.

The key point is that any of these three would be way way better than Scott Brown.

54. Both Capuano and Markey represent safe districts.

That was the reason I gave the PVI info. Markey represents the 5th CD, which has a PVI of D+16. Capuano's 7th CD is even safer, with a PVI of D+29.

The Cook PVI (Partisan Voting Index) compares a district's performance in the last two presidential elections with the national average. The PVI of D+16 means that, in the 2004 and 2008 races, Kerry's and Obama's percentage of the vote in that district averaged sixteen points higher than his percentage nationwide. I don't think that the PVI has yet been updated by replacing 2004 results with 2012 results.

59. Running for U.S. Senate in a special election is very hard work!

Holding a House seat and running is hard enough. Holding a Senate seat for only a few weeks, continuing to run your House Congressional office, your new Senate office staff, satisfying BOTH constituent services, almost impossible while running for the more permanent Senate office statewide.

Bottom line: what I meant to say, there is absolutely NO advantage to being appointed temporarily from the House to the Senate, running for the election to the Senate, and having a small finger back in the District House constituent services activities.

The best course, for Dems to keep the Mass Senate seat, have a strong popular candidate who can do two (but NOT three) jobs at once, and leave the third temporary appointment job to someone like Frank, who can do that sngle job very well.

61. There is no "third temporary appointment job"

The Governor can't appoint an interim Representative the way he can temporarily fill a Senate seat. The seat stays vacant until the special election for that seat.

Markey could do the jobs as Senator and candidate -- in fact, they'd be complementary, as he'd gain statewide name recognition and have the aura of incumbency (some people would vote for him because they'd see no reason to change). Some of his staff would stay in the House office for constituent services, as you note. His Senate staff wpuld be the rest of his House staff plus, presumably, some of Kerry's people who are suddenly without a job and are uninterested in or unqualified for work at State.

62. Evidently you have never worked in a Congressperson's office

Both vacant seats and filled seats in House and Senate stil have staffs, 4-10 people who work for the people of the district or the state. They fill constituent services requests day by day. They work from about 8 AM to 5-8 PM, daily, five days a week, answer emails, phones, etc. Make calls back to the district to resolve problems, send out letters, schedule visits.

Both the Senate office of Kerry and the House office of Markey or Lynch or whomever DO NOT CEASE TO DO THEIR JOBS, when one person moves on, changes from house to temporary Senate appointment. Please get up to speed on how your Congressional staff works to serve you. If you need examples, Google how the staff of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords continued to serve their boss while she was in recovery for months and months before resigning.

You seem to be less than fully informed. But perhaps I am wrong.

By the way, I never ever said there was a temporary appointment for a House member being appointed to the Senate, but I DID say that both House and Senate staffs continue to work, and need leadership from the former House member now serving in the Senate. I think you missed the point entirely.

64. Evidently you didn't read my post very carefully.

I've never worked in Congress but I understand that, when a seat is vacant, the office continues to function for constituent services. That's why I wrote that, if Markey were appointed to the Senate, "Some of his staff would stay in the House office for constituent services...."

Your argument is that this function would be a significant drain on Markey's time and attention, but your own example disproves that. Congresswoman Giffords's staff handled such things during the long period when she was totally incapable of assisting or supervising in any way. Therefore, I'm not clear why you say that Markey's House staff would "need leadership from the former House member now serving in the Senate." Even while serving as Senator and campaigning in the special election, Markey could easily provide at least as much leadership as someone with a traumatic brain injury!

66. Congrats to Tammy, she is the first person. Barney will be the first male.

Yes, Congrats to Tammy for being the first person.
Barney can be the first male.
And Christine Quinn will be the first open Gay mayor of NYC in 2013,with the full backing and support of the current mayor, though it is widely thought that she wouldn't not be the first.

That there are zero black democratic senators at the moment is a crime.
There should be 51 at least female senators
And the same applied to every group.

17. Sounds good to us here in Massachusetts! And, given that the Governor won't appoint

(or still seems inclined to not appoint) someone who might then run for the special election, it would seem to be a win-win.

“I expect to appoint someone who does not plan to run for the seat because, practically, I think that’s going to be hard for that person to do successfully,” Patrick said, according to the Boston Herald.

24. Elizabeth Warren did it successfully, a complete novice to

political campaigning. She just made much more sense than Brown, and the people understood.

Brown's shiny luster is wearing off. He may have a pretty face, but there's no real brain power upstairs in that head.

Massachusetts candidates to run against Brown know how hard they have to fight for the seat. Brown, by the way, may actually NOT run again, and wait and try to become Governor in 2014. Mass voters seem comfortable with putting a Republican into that Governor's office, (e.g. Mitt Romney).

Brown had almost 3 years to do something for Mass as a Senator. Results? None! But the Wall Street crowd and the giant banks loved him.

37. She did do it successfully, but not easily.

She also had more money behind her than, I think, any Senatorial candidate in U.S. history, a good deal of it coming because she is female. And Brown messed up his strongest suit, the "I'm an independent nice guy who is just all about the people of Massachusetts." Plus, it was not only a Presidential election year, but a Presidential election year in which Republicans messed up badly on the women issue.

IOW, it was practically a perfect storm for Brown to lose and Warren to win, just like the special election after Kennedy died was the perfect storm for him to win.

38. No Democrat in Mass is "complacent" after the Brown victory

Back in 2010, A January election, no other races on the ballot. Most college folks stil on vacations, and Martha Coakley making a mess of her image at every turn. It was the year, 2010, when Dems simply beieved the Dem would win without voting, stayed home. Never again.

Brown just lost an election to a novice. Brown has no compass, and made major racist mistakes. Brown gives Republicans in the Senate no majority even if he won. Fewer outside banker investor dollars will flow his way.

Dems are the definite majority in Mass, Dems control all 3 branches of government. Dems will all support and get out the vote for whoever is the Dem candidate. Kerry, Kennedys' and Boston Mayor Menino will support the Dem candidate. No shoe-in, but the odds are: no Repubican should hold that Senate seat for another 2 years. Barney Frank, as interim Senator, wil endorse his Dem ally, whoever it is.

The mistakes of 2010 will NOT happen again. That said, no one can be sure of anything in politics.

46. That same fact pattern will not occur again.

But other mistakes will be made on both sides. That is inevitable.

"Brown just lost an election to a novice."

Yes, so you said in Reply 24 and I replied to that point in my Reply 37.

As I said in Reply 37, Warren did not win easily, despite all the things I cited in my prior post. And for all the reasons stated in my prior post, this would be a very different election than November 2012 was.

The only elections Brown had himself faced previously were local. The election for the Senate seat was the first statewide election and the first electioin for federal office he faced in a state that is supposedly the bluest and he did not do too badly. Moreover, local media touts him like he was an ice cream sundae in July.

I think we agree that being complacent would be a mistake. Beyond that, I am not sure if we are disagreeing on anything or just going in a circle by repeating ourselves.

25. He wants to live out his life in other endeavors.

He doesn't want to be a Senator for several more years. (Kerry's 6 year term is up in 2014 as Scott Brown/Kennedy's 6 year term was up on 2012).

Barney has written one book so far, wants to teach, and consult. Probably, he knows he would be happier doing that than as a permanent Senator in his 70's. There also may be health reasons which we might not be aware of, after all, he's 72.

67. Aw hell, Gov Patric could do worse, say Scott Brown for example.

68. Barney screwed America once, so why not let him do it again.

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress So when someone tries to blame Bush...

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
Clinton reinstituted the Community Reinvestment Act in '95, formerly passed by Carter in '77 and doubled down on it by forcing the Fed to lower credit standards so poor minorities could own a home without a down payment, credit check, or a job.
Obama was working for Acorn during that same period as a community organizer, shaking down banks in south side of Chicago by forcing them with lawsuits of racial bias.